Column

As records tumble and the world enjoys the spectacle of the Beijing Olympic games, it is the story of the young Chinese girl Yang Peiyi that has caught everyone’s attention. Peiyi is of course the gap-toothed child with the silvery voice who sang the opening song at the inaugural ceremony, except that the world never got to see her. Instead, the television cameras showed the cute-as-a-button Lin Miaoke who charmed everyone with her rendering of ‘Ode to the Motherland.’

Except that this was not true, as we have since found out. Miaoke was merely lip-syncing in the manner in which our film-stars mouth the words on the screen that have been originally sung by playback singers. Poor Peiyi wasn’t found sweet-looking enough; the show’s music director, who apparently took the decision to
replace her with the backing of a senior party member, said the singer was not “flawless” and the decision was taken in the “best interests of the country.”

By this we understand that China wanted to present its best face to the world on such an important occasion and could not possibly allow an imperfect person — one with a gap in the front teeth — to take up the job. Sure, the child has a good voice, but we need perfection, the party boss must have said; get me a cutesy pie. As for Peiyi, who knows what terrible fate has befallen her?

The world of course found the whole thing outrageous. There have already been stories about the Chinese ‘manufacturing’ athletes, pushing young boys and girls to the brink so that they can win medals. Whatever happened to those who did not rise to the occasion? Have they been condemned to a life of humiliation for ever?

Curiously, at the same time when the bizarre saga of Yang Peiyi was unfolding, we in Mumbai were reading about the court plea of a couple that wanted to abort their foetus after the legal limit to do so had been passed. They had found that the unborn child had a congenital heart defect and they wanted to abort, presumably to spare the child (and themselves) the heartbreak. It is the kind of terrible dilemma that no parent would want for themselves-everyone wants and loves their child, but what if the child is, in some way, defective?

Yet, the case raised several ethical issues, apart from the obvious legal one, since the legal limit for aborting a foetus had already been passed in this instance. Should parents just give up on a child (or any member of a family, for that matter) because of a defect of some kind? This is not merely about mercy killing in the case of an incurable disease or a long-lasting coma — here the crucial word is ‘defect’. A defect can mean many things, not merely a disease or an ailment — it can also imply a handicap which is not life-threatening. From there onwards, getting rid of a female foetus is only a step away.

In the late 19th century, a new science called eugenics emerged. Its first big promoter was Sir Francis Galton, who was inspired by the work on evolution by his cousin Charles Darwin. Many prominent people supported it, among them, HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw, but equally influential people were opposed to it. The science caught on fast in academia and it caught the attention of the Nazis, who were fascinated by it since it fitted right into their scheme of things of creating the perfect Aryan race.
What is eugenics? This is what its Wikipedia entry, which puts it in the simplest possible way, says: “(it) is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.”

Could anything be more reasonable? Who would not want to create a society that is healthier and decreases human suffering? Besides, it would also save on precious resources — perfect in these times of rising oil prices and food shortages.

But this has obvious moral problems. The conservatives will bring up the issue of man playing god, but that is raised for all kinds of medical and scientific research. The bigger point is that how will we define ‘defective’? One day it could be a brain disorder that will not allow a child to have a normal life, but at another time it could be a gap-toothed child. More importantly, who will decide it? A committee, a political party or even a municipal ward office? Will cultural factors play a role or will it be left to the fashion of the day (let’s allow only those girls who will grow up to be size zero.) It’s a frightening thought.

We always search for our own Arcadia and want to remove the imperfect from our paradise, but diversity of all kinds is what makes our world so much more human. Sometimes these things pain us, at other times they make us laugh, but they are all part of the infinite variety of our universe. Removing inequality from that world is not the same as eliminating what we find to be ‘defective’. A gap-toothed girl’s smile can be as sweet as as the angelic child’s.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net